mastery of concepts, scientific attitudes, and …

Copyright © 2020, JMIE : Journal of Madrasah Ibtidaiyah Education, 4 (2) 2020 p-ISSN: 2580-0868, e-ISSN: 2580-2739

Available online at website : http://e-journal.adpgmiindonesia.com/index.php/jmie

JMIE: Journal of Madrasah Ibtidaiyah Education, 4(2), 2020, 248-260

MASTERY OF CONCEPTS, SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDES, AND SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS IN INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING IN

THE 5th GRADE

Tri Suryaningsih1) , Ferry Ferdiana Ruslih2) Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Syarif Hidayatullah1), SDN Gandaria Utara 03 Jakarta

Selatan2) E-mail: [email protected]), [email protected])

Submit: 10 Juni 2020, Revisi: 20 Juli 2020, Approve: 11 November 2020

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the improvement mastery a concept, scientific attitude, and science process skill in the learning of structured and guided inquiry learning and analyzed the difference. This research was conducted in SDN Purwoyoso 02 and 03 with the quasy-experiment method, experiment class 1 using structured inquiry and exeperiment class 2 using guided inquiry learning model. Data analysis techniques use N-gain and independent samples t-test. The study showed the following results: (1) there is an increased of mastery of concepts, scientific attitudes and scientific process skills students in structured inquiry class with medium category gain. (2) there is an increase of mastery of concepts, scientific attitudes with and science process skills students in guided inquiry class with medium category gain. (3) there is a difference of mastery of concept, scientific attitude and science process skill between structured and guided inquiry class students. The result of mastery of scientific concepts, scientific attitudes, and inquiry skills of inquiry classes is higher than the structured inquiry class. The results of this study can be concluded that inquiry learning is better guided than structured inquiry. Keywords: Mastery of Concepts, Scientific Attitude, Science Process Skills, Structured Inquiry, Guided Inquiry.

Pengutipan: Tri Suryaningsih & Ferry Ferdiana Ruslih. (2020). Mastery of Concepts, Scientific Attitudes, and Science Process Skills in Inquiry-Based Learning in the 5th Grade. JMIE: Journal of Madrasah Ibtidaiyah Education, 4(2), 2020, 248-260. jmie.v4i2.191.

Permalink/DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.32934/jmie.v4i2.191

mailto:[email protected]

Mastery of Concepts, Scientific Attitudes, and Science Process Skills…

249 JMIE : Journal of Madrasah Ibtidaiyah Education, Vol. 4 (2) 2020 Permalink/DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.32934/jmie.v4i2.191

Copyright © 2020 | JMIE | p-ISSN: 2580-0868, e-ISSN: 2580-2739

INTRODUCTION

The most important goal of science education is to teach students how to become

involved in the investigation and allow individuals to use science process skills (Aktamis, H., &

Ergin, 2008). In the step of science investigation activities available space for teachers to develop

a scientific attitude (Hendracipta, 2016). By studying science students are expected to have

knowledge, attitudes, skills, ideas and concepts that are organized about the natural environment

more deeply, gained from experience through a series of scientific inquiry process.

Developing a school curriculum is crucial to improving the science process skills,

improving science process skills in science education are still a problem in the school curriculum

(Ergul, R., Simsekli, Y., Calis, S., Ozdilek, Z., Gocmencelebi, S., & Sanli, 2011). Studies around

the world have revealed an important issue of increasing the percentage of students who are not

interested in science. Many students, especially women, have negative feelings and attitudes

toward science, which prevent them from continuing with scientific inquiry (Hacieminoglu,

2016). From the study, the idea that traditional teaching and more reliance on textbooks could

be responsible for the increase in students' negative attitudes about science (Hacieminoglu et al,

2009) and teachers do not teach about science process skills first and do not encourage students

to seek (Ergul, R., Simsekli, Y., Calis, S., Ozdilek, Z., Gocmencelebi, S., & Sanli, 2011). This

condition shows that science learning process in primary school is still done conventionally. The

role of the teacher has not fully implemented the learning actively and creatively in involving

the students and not yet using the approach/learning strategy that varies based on the character

of the subject (Susanto, 2012).

The results of observations of science learning in Purwoyoso State Elementary School 02

and 03 Semarang in the second semester of 2016-2017 learning year, showed that in general

students only listened to the subject matter and did the assignments given by the teacher. In the

learning process students become passive and natural science learning becomes less optimal.

When the teacher asks questions, most students are busy chatting with their friends, not paying

attention to the teacher and some even look sleepy during the learning process. In the lecture

process, the teacher has not been able to optimize the process skills and scientific attitude

because students do not conduct scientific experiments. The scientific attitude that arises in this

learning is only the aspect of curiosity by asking the teacher. In grade 5 SDN Purwoyoso 02 city

of Semarang, of 64 students who asked the teacher only 21.9% or 14 students and in grade 5

SDN Purwoyoso 03 city of Semarang, out of 105 students who asked the teacher only 24.8%

or 26 students. The science process skills that appear are only aspects of predicting answers to

teacher questions based on student experience or based on books. In class 5 SDN Purwoyoso

02 city of Semarang, of 64 students who predicted answers to only 25% or 16 students and in

grade 5 SDN Purwoyoso 03 city of Semarang, out of 105 students who predicted answers to

only 27.6% or 29 students. Scientific attitudes and science process skills in conducting

Tri Suryaningsih & Ferry Ferdiana Ruslih

250 JMIE : Journal of Madrasah Ibtidaiyah Education, Vol. 4 (2) 2020 Permalink/DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.32934/jmie.v4i2.191 Copyright © 2020 | JMIE | p-ISSN: 2580-0868, e-ISSN: 2580-2739

experiments have not yet been seen and cannot be measured optimally because learning is still

dominated by teachers and much depends on textbooks. Things that occur in this learning are

not in accordance with the learning objectives which include the development of the realm of

attitudes, knowledge, and skills that are elaborated for each education unit (Permendikbud,

2016). Learning will be more meaningful when teachers invite students to discover concepts

learned through scientific processes.

Inquiry is defined as a very effective teaching approach and method that helps students

to understand concepts and use process skills (Ergul, R., Simsekli, Y., Calis, S., Ozdilek, Z.,

Gocmencelebi, S., & Sanli, 2011). Each step of inquiry-based learning activities must contain

elements of activities to foster scientific attitudes which include objective/honest, unhurried,

open, not confusing facts with opinions, caution, investigative attitudes or high curiosity

(Hendracipta, 2016). In inquiry-based learning, teachers are seen as learning facilitators and not

a container of knowledge. Therefore the work of teachers in the inquiry environment is not to

provide knowledge, but to assist students throughout the process of discovering their own

knowledge (Aceska, 2016).

Inquiry learning has four categories: demonstration inquiry, structured inquiry, guided

inquiry, and independent inquiry. Students at the elementary school level of the high class need

a lot of guidance and direction because they are not accustomed to conducting inquiry learning

so what primary schools can apply is structured inquiry and guided inquiry. Structured inquiry

learning and guided inquiry have similarities in terms of involving students in the learning

process so that they are able to develop students' cognitive, affective, and psychomotor

(Sudaryanti, 2015). However, the two types of inquiry learning have differences in terms of

teacher involvement in the learning process. With the difference in teacher involvement in the

learning process it is possible that it will affect the learning outcomes obtained by students. On

the other hand, the teacher does not have experience in comparing the two inquiry learning so

empirical evidence is needed to prove which is better than the two inquiry learning.

Inquiry-based learning has several advantages. The advantages contained in inquiry

learning are 1) developing cognitive, affective and psychomotor aspects in a balanced manner;

2) give space to students to learn according to their learning style; 3) in accordance with the

development of modern psychology which considers learning to be a process of behavior

change thanks to experience; and 4) can serve the needs of students above the average, meaning

that students who have good learning abilities will not be hampered by students who are weak

in learning (Sanjaya, 2009).

Besides having advantages, inquiry learning certainly has weaknesses or obstacles in its

application. Barriers that can occur in carrying out inquiry learning include 1) lack of time; 2)

confusion in conducting inquiry; and 3) little design in the given task. Some things teachers can




do to overcome this are: 1) the group teaching approach; 2) using constructivism views in

learning; and 3) increasing competence in designing and implementing inquiry (Kuhlthau, 2003).

To involve students in the learning process so as to be able to develop a variety of skills

both mastery of concepts, scientific attitudes, and science process skills of students in science

learning so that the desired learning outcomes have increased it requires structured and guided

inquiry-based learning. After applying structured and guided inquiry-based learning, it is

necessary to know which is better in improving students' mastery of concepts, scientific

attitudes, and science process skills.

Based on the above problems, it can be formulated this research problem as follows:

(1) How is the influence of mastery of concept, scientific attitude, and science process skill of

grade V SD students in structured inquiry learning? (2) How does the influence of mastery of

concept, scientific attitude, and science process skill of students in grade V SD in guided inquiry

learning? (3) Is there a difference in the mastery of concepts, scientific attitude and science

process skills among grade V SD students learning to use structured inquiry learning with guided

inquiry learning?

METHODS

This research is quantitative in the form of experimental quasy with pretest-postest

comparison group design. There were two class groups, the first experimental group using a

structured inquiry learning model and a second experimental group using guided inquiry. The

research was conducted in SDN Purwoyoso 02 and 03 with the population of all students of

class V SDN Purwoyoso 02 and Purwoyoso 03 Ngaliyan district, Semarang city. Form of

sampling using purposive sampling that is taking samples with certain consideration. The sample

in this research is the students of VA SDN Purwoyoso 02 class of 31 students, VB class

amounted to 33 students and students of VA SDN Purwoyoso 03 class amounted to 36

students, VB class amounted to 35 students. The total sample is 135 students.

Techniques for data collection in this study are as follows: (1) pre-test concept mastery

before using structured and guided inquiry learning, (2) observing scientific attitudes and

students' science process skills during the learning process taking place in the experimental class

that uses structured and guided inquiry learning, (3) post-test mastery of concepts after using

structured and guided inquiry learning.

Data collection instruments used in this study were tests and non-tests. The test used

in the form of multiple choice questions mastered the concept of light material properties with

20 items that have been validated. Non-tests are used in the form of a scientific attitude

observation sheet with five indicators namely curiosity, caution, honesty, persistence and

openness. Observation sheet non-test science process skills with five indicators namely

conducting experiments, observing, predicting, inferring and communicating.



RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Mastery of Concepts

Ability to master the concept of students obtained from pretest and post-test learning

science. The results of concept mastering tests on structured and guided inquiry classes each

gained significant improvement. Based on the pretest result, the structured and guided inquiry

class is relatively the same. It is seen from the acquisition of master test results of student

concepts before learning to use structured and guided inquiry. Postest results show differences,

it is seen from the acquisition of test results after learning using structured and guided inquiry.

The results of the concept of mastering the concept of structured and guided inquiry students

are presented in graph 1.

Graph 1. Results of Pretest and Posttest Mastery Concepts Structured and Guided

Inquiry Classes

Based on the above table, the mastery of the concept of inquired structured and guided

experienced a significant increase. This is because inquiry-based learning has a positive impact

on conceptual understanding (Şimşek, P., & Kabapınar, 2010), which involves a student

centered process, students are given the opportunity to be actively involved in learning both

mentally, intellectually, and socially emotional (Hermawati, 2012). As a subject of learning,

students can optimize cognitive, affective, and psychomotor aspects equally (Sanjaya, 2009)

through a process of inquiry and discovery. Investigation-based activities increase student

motivation because inquiry gives students the freedom to make their choices, gives them the

opportunity to make self-arrangements and to take part in it (Bayram, Z., Oskay, Ö. Ö., Erdem,

E., Özgür, S. D., & Şen, 2013). Inquiry-based learning can stimulate students 'motivation, apply

student research skills, construct meaning and acquire scientific knowledge (Suduc, A. M., Bizoi,

M., & Gorghiu, 2015) so it has an impact on the mastery of student concepts.

The model of the study of mercury is very effective in improving the mastery of student

concepts (Prasetyowati, E. N., & Suyatno, 2016). This is supported by Budiman's research

(2017) indicates that the improvement of conceptual mastery in inquiry model is greater than

the increase of mastery in conventional learning model. Learning with guided inquiry

47,91 48,76

75,8983,3

0

20

40

60

80

100

Structured Inquiry Guided Inquiry

Val

ue

Mas

teri

ng

Of

Co

nce

pt

Pretest Posttest




experiments can improve the mastery of student concepts, this is because when doing the

inquiry students can optimize the process of reconstruction of knowledge and understanding

of a material (Praptiwi, L., Sarwi, & Handayani, 2012).

Based on the pretest and posttest gain analysis the concept of structured inquiry class

gets a gain value of 0.52; while the pretest and posttest gain analysis mastery of guided inquiry

concept obtained a gain value of 0.68. From each experimental class, the gain is in the medium

category. Based on the results obtained post-test, there are differences in the average results of

mastery of the concept of inquiry learning structured and guided, the following presented the

results of differences test using independent samples t-test in table 1.

Table 1. Differentiated Test Mastery Concept of Structured and Guided Inquiry

Classrooms

t-test for Equality of Means

T Df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differen

ce

Std.

Error

Differen

ce

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

PK

Equal

variances

assumed

-

4,308 134 ,000 -7,438 1,727 -10,853 -4,023

Equal

variances not

assumed

-

4,316

132,61

2 ,000 -7,438 1,723 -10,846 -4,029

Based on the independent samples test t-test the mastery of the concept of structured

inquired class and guided to obtain the level of significance 0.000 <0.05, then H0 rejected. This

suggests that the mastery data of structured and guided inquiry class concepts has significant

differences.

Structured inquiry learning, and guided inquiry, can both increase students' posttest scores

in terms of mastery of concepts. However, the average mastery of the inquiry concept of the

inquiry is higher than the structured inquiry class, because in guided inquiry, the teacher presents

the question, the student investigates using the design/procedure chosen by the student (Bell et

al 2005), the design/procedure in question namely methods and solutions so that students can

independently determine the procedures they will use that impact on their involvement in

finding the concepts learned. Whereas in structured inquiry learning students are involved in

hands-on activity or laboratory work, collecting data, and drawing conclusions but referring to

the steps teachers have made, which makes the students constrained by procedures that have

been made so that students are less than optimal in finding the concepts learned.



This is supported by Rahayu's research which states that there are significant differences

in effectiveness on mastery of the concept of the classroom approach of guided inquiry and

structured inquiry (Rahayu, 2016). The ability of mastery of the concept of guided inquiry class

is higher than the structured inquiry class. Based on the test gain and independent samples t-

test above, it can be concluded that the learning model structured inquiry and guided both can

increase the mastery of the concept of students but have differences in improvement. Learning

with inquiry is better guided in improving the mastery of student concepts rather than structured

inquiry.

Scientific Attitude

The scientific attitude data is obtained from the observer observations made at each

meeting in structured and guided inquiry learning. There are five indicators of scientific attitude

that must be observed, namely curiosity, caution, diligence, honest and open. The observational

data of scientific attitudes of each indicator are presented in table 2

Table 2. Results of Student's Scientific Attitudes Each Indicator

No Indicators Structured Inquiry Guided Inquiry

Average (%) Annotation Average (%) Annotation

1 Curiosity 74,25 Good 92,39 Very Good 2 Carefullness 75,37 Good 84,05 Very Good

3 Perseverance 75,00 Good 78,62 Good

4 Honesty 75,00 Good 77,53 Good

5 Openness 79,10 Good 77,17 Good

Scientific attitudes in structured inquiry get well-categorized average on each indicator,

whereas for guided scientific attitudes get a very good category average on curiosity and caution

indicators, for other indicators to get a good category. This suggests that inquiry learning is

structured and guided can make students' scientific attitude good. To see the improvement of

scientific attitude, the following presented the scientific attitudes of each meeting in Table 3.

Table 3. Results of Scientific Attitudes of Structured s and Guided Inquiry Classes by

Each Meeting

No Classes

Scientific attitudes

Average of Meetings (%)

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th

1 Structured Inquiry 47,98 53,73 57,61 64,55 72,46 75,74

2 Guided Inquiry 49,56 55,86 60,00 68,04 75,14 81,95




Based on the data in the table above, students' scientific attitude has increased at each

meeting. scientific attitudes to structured and guided inquiry classes each have significant

improvements, this is because students have high curiosity, can make decisions, develop a desire

to seek answers, approach problems with open minds, practice problem-solving, objectives

(Development, 2014), so students are not only studying a collection of knowledge in the form

of facts, concepts or principles, but also studying the process of discovery itself in fostering a

scientific attitude (Hendracipta, 2016).

This is supported by the results of research Uswatun and Rohaeti (2015: 148) showed

that there is increasing scientific attitude of students on inquiry learning. Students who

experience inquiry learning perform better than traditional methods and statistical analysis also

shows that inquiry methods are effective for the development of scientific attitudes (Khan A,

S., Shah, A., Makhdoom, S., Mahmood, Z., & Zareen, 2012). Students can gain a more

meaningful and stronger experience attached to their minds (Dewi, N. L., Dantes, N., & Sadia,

2013) thereby positively impacting students' scientific attitudes.

Based on the gain analysis the scientific attitude of the structured inquiry class gained a

gain of 0.55; while the scientific attitude of the guided inquiry class gained a gain of 0.64.

Structured and guided inquiry gain analysis uses the average value of scientific attitudes at first

and sixth meetings. From both experiment classes, the gain is in the moderate category. Judging

from the final result of scientific attitude, there is difference in the average result of scientific

attitude of structured and guided inquiry study, the following is presented difference test result

using independent samples t-test in table 3.

Table 4. Differentiated Test Scientific Attitudes of Structured and Guided Inquiry

Classes


t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differen

ce

Std.

Error

Differen

ce

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

SI

Equal variances

assumed -3,490 134 ,001 -6,210 1,779 -9,730 -2,691

Equal variances

not assumed -3,482

129,67

3 ,001 -6,210 1,784 -9,739 -2,682

Based on the table above, it is obtained scientific attitude data at a significance level of

0.001 <0.05. This shows that there is a difference in scientific attitude between structured and

guided inquiry classes. this is because in guided inquiry, the teacher presents the question, the



student investigates using the design/procedure chosen by the student (Bell, R. L., Smetana, L.,

& Binns, 2005), the design/procedure in question is the method and the solution so that the

students can independently determine the procedures they will use that impact on their

involvement in building a scientific attitude in their experiments. Whereas in structured inquiry

learning students are involved in hands-on activity or laboratory work, collecting data, and

drawing conclusions but referring to the steps teachers have made, which makes the students

constrained by procedures that have been made so students are less than optimal in building a

scientific attitude in their experiments.

This is supported by the research of Bunterm et. al (Bunterm, T., Lee, K., Ng Lan

Kong, J., Srikoon, S., Vangpoomyai, P., Rattanavongsa, J., & Rachahoon, 2014) that the

scientific attitude in the structured inquiry group is still showing improvement. Students in

guided inquiry groups showed greater improvement compared to structured inquiry groups.

This is possible because students in guided inquiry groups have more opportunities to engage

in the scientific process. Based on the gain test and the independent sample t-test, it can be

concluded that the structured and joint guided inquiry learning model can improve students'

scientific attitudes but have different improvements. Learning with inquiry is better structured

in enhancing scientific attitude than structured inquiry.

Science Process Skill

Science process skills data were obtained from observer observations carried out at

each meeting in structured and guided inquiry learning. There are five indicators of science

process skills that should be observed: experiment, observation, prediction, conclusion and

communication. Data on observations of the skills of the scientific process are presented in

table 5

Table 5. Results of Student's Science Process Skills Each Indicator

No Indicators Structured Inquiry Guided Inquiry

Average (%) Annotation Average (%) Annotation

1 Experiment 79,85 Good 82,97 Very Good

2 Observe 82,08 Very Good 81,88 Very Good

3 Predict 76,49 Good 85,50 Very Good

4 Conclude 74,62 Good 81,88 Very Good

5 Communicate 67,91 Good 78,62 Good

Most structured inquiry science skill indicators get well categorized average, while for

guided science process skills most indicators get a very good category average. This suggests




that inquiry learning is structured and guided can make students' science process skills good. To

see the improvement of the science process skills, the following presented the scientific attitudes

of each meeting in table 6.

Table 6. Results of Science Process Skills of Structured s and Guided Inquiry Classes by Each

Meeting

No Classes

Science Process Skills

Average of Meetings (%)

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Structured Inquiry 47,98 53,58 56,94 63,43 70,07 76,19

2 Guided Inquiry 48,18 58,04 60,50 67,89 73,18 82,17

Based on the data in the table above, students' science process skills have improved at

each meeting. students' science process skills in structured and guided inquiry classes each have

significant improvements. This is because the activities in inquiry are embedded with steps that

must use the skills of the science process, inquiry provides more opportunities for students to

seek and find their own facts, concepts and principles through direct experience so that the

learning process becomes more optimal (Rizal, 2014). Students no longer sit listening to the

material or explanation from the teacher, but the students are directly involved in the learning

process they can develop the skills they have.

This is supported by Hartati et. al learning model 5E learning cycle and structured inquiry

have the same potential in improving the science process skills and students' cognitive learning

outcomes (Hartati, T. A. W., Corebima, A. D., & Suwono, 2015). This is in line with the study

of Maikristina et. al that the skills of students' science processes that are learned using guided

inquiry learning models have better achievement than students who are taught using problem

solving model (Maikristina, N., Dasna, I. W., & Sulistina, 2013).

For gain analysis of science process skill of structured and guided class students used

the average value of students' science process skill at the first and sixth meeting, the skill of

structured inquiry class science process gets gain 0,54; while the inquiry science skills of the

inquiry student class gain a gain of 0.67. From each experimental class the gain is in the moderate

category. There is difference of result of learning skill of inquiry study of structured and guided

inquiry, the following is presented difference test result using independent samples t-test in table

7.



Tabel 7. Differentiated Test Science Process Skills of Structured and Guided Inquiry

Classes

Independent Samples Test


t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Differen

ce

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

KPS

Equal variances assumed

-3,337

134 ,001 -5,980 1,792 -9,524 -2,435

Equal variances not

assumed

-3,345

131,343

,001 -5,980 1,788 -9,516 -2,444

Based on the above table, the data of science process skill gained significance level 0,001

<0,05. This shows that there is a difference in the science process skill between structured and

guided inquiry classes. This is caused because in guided inquiry class, the students are more

stimulated to think in determining the research procedure independently, determining the

variable, and formulating the hypothesis (Rahayu, 2016). These activities can increase students'

enthusiasm and skills in carrying out activities so that students are accustomed to making science

learning easier, actively learning, using a sense of responsibility in their own learning, improving

learning decisions, and teaching research methods. Whereas in structured inquiry classes

students conduct investigations through procedures established by teachers (Bell, R. L.,

Smetana, L., & Binns, 2005), so that students feel constrained by existing procedures that make

students less optimal in enhancing their enthusiasm and skill in trial activities.

This is in line with Sudaryanti's study which states that there are significant differences

in science process skills between classes using structured inquiry approaches and classes using

guided inquiry (Sudaryanti, 2015). Rahayu states that there is a significant difference between

the effectiveness of learning with guided inquiry approach and structured inquiry to the students'

scientific skill ability (Rahayu, 2016). Based on the gain test and the independent sample t-test

above, it can be concluded that structured and guided inquiry learning models can improve

students' science process skills but have different improvements. Learning with inquiry is better

guided in improving the science process skills than structured inquiry.

CONCLUSION

The conclusions from the analysis and discussion result that the structured and guided

inquiry learning model can improve the mastery of the concept, the scientific attitude, and the




science process skill of the students but have different improvements. The inquiry learning

model is better guided in enhancing the mastery of concepts, scientific attitudes, and students'

science process skills compared to guided inquiry learning models.

REFERENCES

Aceska, N. (2016). New Science Curriculum Based on Inquiry Based Learning- A Model of

Modern Educational System in Republic of Macedonia. Journal of Education in Science,

Environment and Health (JESEH), 2(1), 1–12.

Aktamis, H., & Ergin, O. (2008). The effect of scientific process skills education on students’

scientific creativity, science attitudes and academic achievementNo Title. Asia-Pacific

Forum on Science Learning and Teaching., 9(1), 1–21.

Bayram, Z., Oskay, Ö. Ö., Erdem, E., Özgür, S. D., & Şen, Ş. (2013). Effect of Inquiry Based

Learning Method on Students’ Motivation. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 988–

996.

Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying Inquiry Instruction. The Science Teacher,

72(7), 30–33.

Bunterm, T., Lee, K., Ng Lan Kong, J., Srikoon, S., Vangpoomyai, P., Rattanavongsa, J., &

Rachahoon, G. (2014). Do different levels of inquiry lead to different learning outcomes?

A comparison between guided and structured inquiry. International Journal of Science

Education, 36(12), 1937–1959.

Development, U. S. A. for I. (2014). Buku Sumber untuk Dosen LPTK Pembelajaran IPA SMP di

LPTK. USAID.

Dewi, N. L., Dantes, N., & Sadia, I. W. (2013). Pengaruh model pembelajaran inkuiri terbimbing

terhadap sikap ilmiah dan hasil belajar IPA. Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar, 3(1).

Ergul, R., Simsekli, Y., Calis, S., Ozdilek, Z., Gocmencelebi, S., & Sanli, M. (2011). The effects

of inquiry-based science teaching on elementary school students’ science process skills

and science attitudes. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy (BJSEP), 5(1), 48–68.

Hacieminoglu, E. (2016). Elementary School Students’ Attitude toward Science and Related

Variables. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(2), 35–52.

Hartati, T. A. W., Corebima, A. D., & Suwono, H. (2015). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Inkuiri

Terstruktur dan Siklus Belajar 5E terhadap Keterampilan Proses Sains dan Hasil Belajar

Kognitif Siswa pada Kemampuan Akademik Berbeda. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains (JPS), 3(1),

22–30.

Hendracipta, N. (2016). Menumbuhkan Sikap Ilmiah Siswa Sekolah Dasar Melalui Pembelajaran

IPA Berbasis Inkuiri. Jurnal Pendidikan Sekolah Dasar, 2(1), 109–116.



Hermawati, N. W. M. (2012). Pengaruh model pembelajaran inkuiri terhadap penguasaan

konsep biologi dan sikap ilmiah siswa SMA ditinjau dari minat belajar siswa. Jurnal

Pendidikan IPA, 2(2), 1–30.

Khan A, S., Shah, A., Makhdoom, S., Mahmood, Z., & Zareen, R. (2012). Scientific Attitude

Development at Secondary School Level: A Comparison between Methods of Teaching.

Language in India, 12(9), 439–454.

Kuhlthau, C. G. (2003). Rethinking Libraries for the Information Age School. Liblary Skill,

22(4), 3–5.

Maikristina, N., Dasna, I. W., & Sulistina, O. (2013). Pengaruh penggunaan model pembelajaran

inkuiri terbimbing terhadap hasil belajar dan keterampilan proses sains siswa kelas XI

IPA SMAN 3 Malang pada materi hidrolisis garam. Jurnal Pembelajaran Kimia, 6(1), 98–

108.

Permendikbud. (2016). Lampiran Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia

Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 Tentang Standar Kompetensi Lulusan Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah.

Praptiwi, L., Sarwi, & Handayani, L. (2012). Efektivitas model pembelajaran eksperimen inkuiri

terbimbing berbantuan my own dictionary untuk meningkatkan penguasaan konsep dan

unjuk kerja siswa SMP RSBI. Unnes Science Education Journal, 1(2), 87–95.

Prasetyowati, E. N., & Suyatno, S. (2016). Peningkatan Penguasaan Konsep Dan Keterampilan

Berpikir Kritis Siswa Melalui Implementasi Model Pembelajaran Inkuiri Pada Materi

Pokok Larutan Penyangga. Jurnal Kimia Dan Pendidikan Kimia, 1(1), 67–74.

Rahayu, N. (2016). Pengaruh Pembelajaran dengan Pendekatan Guided Inquiry dan Structured Inquiry

terhadap Kemampuan Penguasaan Konsep dan Scientific Skill Materi Sistem Pencernaan pada Siswa

SMA Kelas XI IPA. Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta.

Rizal, M. (2014). Pengaruh Pembelajaran Inkuiri Terbimbing dengan Multi Representasi

terhadap Keterampilan Proses Sains dan Penguasaan Konsep IPA Siswa SMP. Jurnal

Pendidikan Sains, 2(3), 159–165.

Sanjaya. (2009). Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses Pendidikan. Kencana.

Şimşek, P., & Kabapınar, F. (2010). The Effects of Inquiry-Based Learning on Elementary

Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Matter, Scientific Process Skills and Science

Attitudes. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1190–1194.

Sudaryanti. (2015). Komparasi Keefektifan Pendekatan Inkuiri Terbimbing dan Pendekatan Inkuiri

Terstruktur terhadap Keterampilan Berpikir Kritis, Penguasaan Konsep dan Keterampilan Proses

Sains Siswa. Program Pascasrjana Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta.

Suduc, A. M., Bizoi, M., & Gorghiu, G. (2015). Inquiry Based Science Learning in Primary

Education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 205, 474–479.

Susanto, A. (2012). Teori Belajar & Pembelajaran di Sekolah Dasar. Prenada Media Grup.

mastery of concepts, scientific attitudes, and …

Documents